1
HR@MOORE
CHRO SuccessionResults of the 2014 HR@Moore Survey of Chief HR Officers
Patrick M. WrightThomas C. Vandiver Bicentennial Chair in Business and Professor of Management
Anthony J. NybergAssociate Professor of Management
Donald J. Schepker Assistant Professor of Management
Michael D. Ulrich Ph.D. Student of Management
Center forExecutiveSuccession
2
The authors wish to acknowledge the
Riegel and Emory Center for Human Resources and the
Center for Executive Succession for financial support of this study.
The conclusions and any errors, however, are the responsibility of the authors.
John MurabitoCIGNA
Michael D’AmbroseADM
Ken CarrigSunTrust
Jodee KozlakTarget
Dave PaceBloomin’ Brands
Joe RuoccoGoodyear
Marcia AvedonIngersoll Rand
Mirian Graddick-WeirMerck & Co.
Daisy NgDarden Restaurants
Sue SuverUS Steel
Jeffrey ShumanQuest Diagnostics
James DuffyAlly
Dermot O’BrienADP
Kevin BarrTerex Corp.
HR@Moore CHRO Survey Advisory Board
Pamela KimmetCoca-Cola Enterprises
L. Kevin CoxAmerican Express
Jorge FigueredoMcKesson
Katy BarclayKroger
Skip SpriggsTIAA-CREF
Marty PhalenSCANA
Mara SwanManpower Group
3
HR@MOOREExecutive Summary
This report discusses the results of the 2014 HR@Moore Survey of Chief HR Officers, particularly focusing
on the section that explored Chief HR Officer (CHRO) succession. The results show that a vast majority
(60%) of the CHROs were hired either from outside the organization or outside the HR function, with only
32% attaining the role through a normal internal succession process. Most outside hires suggested that the
reason for the outside hire was due to a lack of sufficient internal talent. In addition, CHROs reported that
they were least prepared for dealing with the board around issues of executive compensation, and that the
prior assignment that was most valuable for preparing them for the CHRO role was serving as a business
partner to a large business.
CHROs who describe current efforts to develop an internal successor report that it requires getting the
potential successor visibility with the CEO, ELT, and the board, and this usually occurs through special
projects. It also requires developing their skills/experiences/perspectives through rotating the individual
through difficult roles.
4
Introduction
As the CHRO role becomes more visible,
complex, difficult, and valuable, the HR@Moore
Survey of CHROs has annually attempted
to explore the issues, challenges, and best
practices by gaining insights from those sitting
in the role. The survey has explored a number
of issues over the past six years, including
the CEO’s agenda for HR, CEO/Executive
Leadership Team (ELT) dynamics, and the
CHRO’s role in CEO succession. The 2014
survey focused on three areas: The impact of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA), assessment and onboarding of CEO
successor candidates, and CHRO succession.
This report focuses on the survey results
regarding CHRO succession.
The survey was sent to 560 Chief HR Officers at
the Fortune 500 companies as well as CHROs
that are part of a large CHRO professional
society. Completed surveys were received from
223, representing a 40% response rate.
The survey consists of a combination of
quantitative and qualitative (open-ended)
questions. While the quantitative responses lend
themselves to easy interpretation, answers to
the open-ended questions create challenges. To
handle these, the lead researcher read through all
of the responses to each question and developed
categories that represented the most frequently
cited themes. Then two Masters of HR students
coded each individual response into the defined
categories. If they disagreed, they discussed their
rationale until they could come to agreement on the
appropriate category in which a response belonged.
This enables us to present more quantitative
analyses of the qualitative data.
The CHRO’s Roles
Before discussing the details of CHRO succession,
we present data on the various roles and activities
of CHROs. In previous CHRO surveys we presented
the respondents with 7 work roles identified based
on interviews and focus groups of CHROs. These
roles are listed in Table 1.
As Figure 1 shows, CHROs continue to report
spending the most time in their role as Leader
of the HR function (23%). Strategic Advisor and
Talent Architect both account for 17% of CHRO time
followed by Counselor/Confidante/Coach at 16%.
Finally, CHROs report spending 12% of their time as
Liaison to the Board of Directors.
TABLE 1. CHRO roles
Strategic Advisor to the Executive Team Activities focused specifically on the formulations and implementation of the firm’s strategy.
Counselor/Confidante/Coach to the Executive Team Activities focused on counseling or coaching executive team members or resolving interpersonal or political conflicts among members.
Liaison to the Board of Directors preparation for board meetings, phone calls with board members, attendance at board meetings.
Talent Strategist/Architect Activities focused on building and identifying the human capital critical to the present and future of the firm.
Leader of the HR Function Working with HR team members regarding the development, design, and delivery of HR services.
Workforce Sensor Activities focused on identifying workforce engagement/morale issues or concerns and building employee engagement.
Representative of the Firm Activities with external stakeholders, such as government agencies, investor groups, proxy advisory firms, professional societies, etc.
5
HR@MOORE
The stability of these roles over time seems the
most glaring observation from these results. Over
the past 5 years of the survey, virtually every role
has only varied by 1-2%. This suggests that, at least
for now, we have a reliable and stable picture of the
CHRO role.
The CHRO Succession Problem
While the role seems stable, how individuals enter
the role has been shown to be both stable and
problematic. Past surveys have revealed that only
34-36% of CHROs came into their role through an
internal succession within the HR function, with
the rest either being directly brought into the role
from outside the organization, being promoted
from outside HR but within in the organization,
or being hired from outside the organization with
the promise of becoming the CHRO after a short
transition period. This compares unfavorably with
the CFO role where roughly 56% were promoted
through an internal succession. Thus, the 2014
survey sought to gain more specific insights into
how CHROs seek to develop their successors, as
well as the reasons that CEOs often look outside for
the CHRO’s successor.
The CHRO’s Elevation to the Role
The first set of questions focused on how the
responding CHRO attained the role. CHROs were
asked about their predecessor’s departure, how
they were selected, and the reasons involved in that
selection.
Only 30.7% of CHROs reported that their
predecessor left through a normal retirement. 51%
reported that the predecessor left “through mutual
agreement,” 8.9% left for an outside job, and 9.4%
were promoted or transferred into a different role.
Consistent with prior surveys, we asked how the
respondent came into the role. Again, consistent
with past results, 32% were promoted through a
normal internal (within HR) succession, while 59.9%
were hired directly from outside. An additional 2.5%
were hired from outside with the promise of being
promoted into the role, and 5.6% were promoted
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Firm Representative
Workforce Sensor
HR Function Leader
Talent Architect
Board Liaison
Counselor/Confidante/Coach
Strategic Advisor
Figure 1: Time Spent In CHRO roles
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
6
from within the organization but outside of HR.
Figure 2 shows these results over the past five
years of the survey.
Depending upon the response, follow up
questions appeared to gain more insight
regarding that career path. Among those
internally promoted, 71.4% indicated that they
knew they were being groomed to succeed
the CHRO and 36.5% reported that they had
previously worked for the CEO.
For those who indicated that they had been
hired from outside, we asked why they believed
the CEO wanted an outsider in the role. The
most frequent response dealt with the fact that
there was no internal talent available that could
take on the role (49%). In some cases, it was to
transform the HR function (22%) or to provide a
more strategic perspective (16%). These results
can be seen in Figure 3 and we provide some
examples in Table 2.
For those who responded that they were
promoted from within the organization, but
outside of HR, we asked why they believed the
CEO went outside of HR to fill the role. Keeping in
mind that only ten people answered this question,
the most frequent response suggested that the
desire for someone with business acumen drove
the CEO to seek someone from the business. A
few responses indicated that their reputation and
credibility led to their placement in the role, and
a few also noted the lack of a competent internal
successor.
Finally, evidence suggests that boards increasingly
participate in the selection of other C-suite
members (besides the CEO), so we asked about
the involvement that the board had in their
selection. The responses fell into three categories.
As Figure 4 shows, just over a third of the CHROs
were interviewed by one or more board members.
The next highest category were those where the
board had no input (28%). The board approved the
appointment in 22% of the cases and played an
advisory role in 12%. Some examples are provided in
Table 3.
We asked all CHROs what they felt least prepared
for when they took on the CHRO role and these
results appear in Figure 5. Clearly the most pressing
38
12.7
42.3
7
36.1
6.3
54.4
3.2
32
6
55
7
32
5.6
59.9
2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Promoted from within HR Promoted from within the firm, but not from HR
Hired directly into the CHRO role from outside
Hired from the outside for the purpose of future promotion
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 2: How were you promoted to the CHRO role?
2010 2011 2013 2014
7
HR@MOORE
TABLE 2. Reasons for CEO wanting an outsider CHRO
No ready now internal candidates with proven Board experience, depth of executive compensation knowledge, and international working experience.
HR had been undervalued and underinvested in and there was no bench.
Lack of bench strength and to bring needed experience aligned to the strategic plan.
There were no viable internal candidates. There was a general sense that the HR organization at that time was not impactful. There was a desire on the part of the CEO to upgrade the HR function.
To partner with the CEO in the transformation of the company, to generate a leadership pipeline strategy and its implementation, to turn around the HR function.
No internal successor with experience. Also, CEO was looking for an outsider to come in and re-build function to align with longer-term strategy of business and evolving business model.
HR function needed to be radically transformed and there were no right candidates internally. There were two leaders who had aspects of the job, but not the full skill set and the personal values/attributes the CEO and other ELT wanted.
The new CEO intended to change the strategic course for the company and wanted fresh perspective and expertise in large-scale change which was not available internally.
49%
22%
16%
9% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No Inte
rnal T
alent
Availa
ble
Trans
form H
R
Strateg
ic Pers
pecti
ve
New P
erspe
ctive
Culture
Cha
nge
Board
Experi
ence
Intern
ation
al Exp
erien
ce
Talen
t Mgm
t
Previou
s CHRO
Strateg
ic/Org
Chang
e
Lead
ership
New ro
le/firs
t CHRO fo
r Org
Indus
try E
xperi
ence
Exec C
omp E
xperi
ence
M&A Exp
erien
ce
Diversi
ty
Exec S
ucce
ssion
Employe
e Eng
agem
ent
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 3. Why do you think you were brought in from outside instead of an internal promotion?
8
challenge for a new CHRO deals with two
intersecting issues. Executive Compensation
(27%) and Dealing with the Board of Directors
(24%) topped the list of things CHROs reported
being least prepared for, far outdistancing
other aspects such as Dealing with C-Suite
members and Understanding the Business (both
mentioned by 9% of the respondents). These
were closely followed by the Global Nature of the
Business/Function/Talent, the HR team/HR function,
and Understanding the Industry (all at 8%). Table
4 provides some examples of responses from the
CHROs.
We also asked which assignments and/or
experiences best prepared them for the CHRO role.
3.9%
28.1%
21.9%
11.8%
34.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Not Known None Approved Advisory Interviewed
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 4. What role did the board play in the decision to hire or promote you into the role?
TABLE 3. Board’s role in selection of current CHRO
Approved
The Board approved my profile and compensation. They did not interview me.
Although limited—they did have interaction with me prior to the promotion—I would not say they played a role in the decision. The CEO likely informed the Board of his intentions to promote me, and, hearing no concerns expressed, he moved forward.
Advisory
I believe they encouraged our CEO to look outside. This decision was probably driven mostly by the compensation committee.
Interviewed
The Board interviewed me and had to approve my appointment and my compensation package as a member of the Executive Management Team.
The Chair of the Board and the Chair of Compensation Committee interviewed me. Although it was ultimately the CEO’s decision, their endorsements were obviously important to him/her.
9
HR@MOORE
27%
24%
9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 6%
4% 2% 2% 1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Execu
tive C
ompe
nsati
on
Dealin
g with
the b
oard
Dealin
g with
C-S
uite m
embe
rs
Unders
tandin
g the
busin
ess
Global
natur
e of th
e bus
iness
/func
tion/t
alent
HR team
/HR fu
nctio
n
Unders
tandin
g the
indu
stry
Culture
Benefi
ts
Labo
r Rela
tions
Talen
t Cha
lleng
es
Unders
tandin
g Priv
ate E
quity
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 5. What did you feel least prepared for in the CHRO role?
TABLE 4. Least prepared for when taking on the CHRO role
In my first CHRO role, I was least prepared for the board, CEO, management dynamics (along with a corporate governance challenge!). Secondly, the world of executive comp was another learning curve.
I did not have experience in the more complex elements of Executive/CEO compensation or other regulatory topics covered at the Board level.
Board work and C-suite work, despite having worked with the C-suite members for years. Exec Pay also has accelerated and changed wildly over the last six years, my tenure as CHRO.
Board level meeting and interaction. Lack of experience in compensation committee meeting has been a real learning curve.
Technically, I was least prepared in area of executive compensation but the biggest development need was probably learning how to work with the board - understand their expectations, build strong relationships and gain their confidence.
The responses seemed to fall into three general
categories: HR Assignments, Work Experiences, and
Non-HR Assignments.
HR Business Partner was the most frequently
mentioned role (33%), followed by a past role
as CHRO (19%), Benefits (15%), International
Assignment (12%), and Executive Compensation
(11%). These results can be seen in Figure 6.
CHROs also mentioned a number of work
experiences that they felt helped to prepare them
for the role and these results appear in Figure 7. The
most common experience was the opportunity to
work with the Compensation Committee (7%).
Finally, a few mentioned having held non-HR roles
as valuable for preparing them for the CHRO role.
As Figure 8 shows, 4% mentioned having held a
general management role and 3% an operations
role.
In summary, many CHROs came into the role from
outside, largely because there was not enough
10
33%
19%
15%
12% 11%
8%
4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2%
1% 1% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
HR Bu
siness
Partn
er
Past CH
RO
Bene
fits
Intern
a2on
al ass
ignmen
t
Execu2
ve co
mpensa2
on
Talen
t Man
agem
ent
Form
al Ed
uca2
on
Labo
r Rela
2ons
Transfor
ming an
Org
Head
of CO
E's
Consult
ant
Succe
ssion
plan
ning
Org C
hang
e role
Ethics
and C
omplian
ce
Work with
Comp C
ommiIe
e
Percen
t of R
espo
nden
ts
Figure 6. What HR assignments best prepared you for the CHRO role?
7%
4%
3% 3%
3% 3% 3%
2% 2%
1% 1% 1%
1% 1% 1% 1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Working
with
Comp c
ommi0e
e
Transfor
ming an
Org
A0en
d BOD
mee
;ngs
Best in Cla
ss for
HR co
mpany
Board
Prep
ara;o
n
Mul;ple
indu
stries
Work with
mul;
ple CE
Os
CEO s
ucess
sion
Redu
c;on
in Fo
rce/Rest
ructur
ing
Organiz
a;on
disru
p;on
Start-‐
up co
mpany
Turna
round
Bankrup
tcy
Drive
a pro
ject to c
omple
;on
Stand
alon
e on a
n issu
e
Takin
g a co
mpany pu
blic
Percen
t of R
espo
nden
ts
Figure 7. What work experiences best prepared you for the CHRO role?
11
HR@MOORE
internal talent in the function, or at least talent
with the right skill set. Those coming in are least
prepared for their role with the board, which is
something difficult to gain experience in when
being promoted internally. While being a past
CHRO probably provides the best training, the
types of experiences an internal candidate can gain
to best prepare them for the role include those
that put them closer to the business (business
partner), quantitative analysis (benefits and
executive compensation), the talent architect role
(talent management) and the board (executive
compensation).
Preparing Your Successor
After gaining insights into the current CHRO’s
experiences prior to their promotion, we then
sought to explore how these same CHROs are
preparing their own successor. We first asked about
the current state of their succession candidates.
Of those responding, 25.1% indicated that if they
stepped down today they would have a ready now
candidate, 40.3% said the candidate would be ready
in 1-2 years, and 34.6% said that it would be longer
than 2 years. An informal poll of the CHROs that
serve on this survey’s advisory board suggests that
these numbers are disappointing. Most suggested
that in their firm 50% (or higher) of the C-Suite jobs
should have a ready-now successor. Although they
note that the line C-suite jobs have greater need for
a ready successor than staff jobs, they also did not
defend such a low number for the CHRO role.
These results deserve some discussion. Given that
our results on past surveys show only 34-36%
of CHROs came into the job through an internal
succession (32% in this year’s survey), we have
often wondered why this number is so low. When
considering that on a previous question over 50%
of the CHROs noted that their predecessor left
“by mutual agreement” (probably not through a
planned process) it may be that in a number of
cases their earlier than expected departure did not
enable them to fully build a ready-now successor.
In addition, there are a number of reasons offered
for why CEOs go outside for their CHRO hire (need
someone with board experience, coming from
outside they do not trust an insider CHRO, etc.) In
our discussions with a number of CHROs it appears
that the position is quite unique, and depends
4%
3%
1% 1%
1% 1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
4%
5%
5%
General Management
Opera.ons Controller/Audit Sales and Marke.ng Customer Management
Plant Manager
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 8. What Non-‐HR assignments or experiences best prepared you for the CHRO role?
12
on a good chemistry between the CEO and
CHRO, thus it may be that the position may
never be like other C-suite roles in terms of the
percentage of internal successions. However,
this should not justify failing to develop internal
successor candidates to provide options for the
CEO.
In addition, 87.8% said that their CEO supports
the internal candidate. CHROs reported talking
with their CEO about CHRO succession on a
relatively infrequent basis with 1.6% saying they
talk to the CEO weekly, 4.7% monthly, 22.9%
quarterly, 35.4% semi-annually, 30.7% annually, and
4.7% less than annually.
We also asked how the CEO has become familiar
with the internal candidate. The results show that
the CEO has engaged the candidate through
multiple venues (48%), including having them work
on special projects (29%), one-on-one meetings
with the CEO (26%), presentations, and attending
the ELT meetings (21% for each). This is depicted in
Figure 9 and we provide a number of examples in
Table 5.
TABLE 5. Ways the CEO has gotten to know the CHRO successor
1-1 time; projects, presentations.
Exposure in meetings, presentations, town halls, FB from Executive Team.
He meets one on one with her, she is leading critical projects, has attended executive team meetings and comp committee meetings and he gets feedback from other executives on her.
48.2%
29.4% 25.9%
21.2% 21.2%
8.8% 8.8% 8.2% 7.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 3.5% 2.4% 1.8% 1.2% 0.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Multipl
e
Projec
ts
One on
one m
eetin
gs w
ith C
EO
Presen
tation
s
Attend
s ELT
mee
tings
Busine
ss re
view m
eetin
gs
HR Ope
ration
s-upd
ates C
EO
No inte
rnal c
andid
ate
Lunc
h/dinn
er/so
cial a
ctivit
ies
Attend
s boa
rd mee
tings
Compe
nsati
on co
mmittee w
ork
Word of
mou
th/fee
dbac
k from
othe
r exe
cutiv
es
Worked
with
CEO pr
eviou
sly
Plant/b
usine
ss vi
sits
Coach
ing se
ssion
s
Succe
ssion
/talen
t revie
w mee
tings
Busine
ss pa
rtner
for la
rge bu
sines
s
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 9. Describe the ways your CEO has gotten to know the internal candidate
Presentations at key meetings, plan to present at Board of Directors meeting.
Through talent reviews, market visits, leadership meetings, presentations on projects assigned to these people which can also require them to work directly with him, informal sessions like dinners and skip level events.
13
HR@MOORE
As boards are increasingly participating in
C-suite hires/promotions, we asked how CHROs
had given the board exposure to their internal
successor candidates. Not surprisingly, presenting
at board meetings (51%) topped the list, followed
by attending meals at the board meeting (32%),
working with the compensation committee (25%),
and attending board meetings (24%). These results
are shown in Figure 10 and we provide examples in
Table 6.
Finally, we asked about the top 3 ways that the
CHROs were developing their internal successors.
Providing them with challenging assignments/
rotations topped the list with 45% indicating they
use this. This was followed by providing them
exposure to the ELT (34%) and the board (31%).
Coaching (24%), assigning them to lead visible
projects (20%), and giving them executive
compensation experience (20%) rounded out
51.3%
32.5%
25.0% 23.8%
8.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Presen
tation
s
Board
Lunc
hes/d
inners
/brea
kfasts
Compe
nsati
on C
ommitte
e
Attend
s boa
rd mee
tings
Specia
l proj
ects
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 10. How have your internal candidates been exposed to the Board?
Presentations Board Lunches/ Compensation Attends board Special Projects dinners/breakfasts Committee meetings
TABLE 6. Ways the board gets exposure to the CHRO successor candidates
Comp Committee meetings, annual Board review of People Strategy, informal lunches/dinners.
Presentations to the Board twice a year, board dinners, social setting.
Presenting to the entire Board at least once a year and attending all Compensation Committee meetings.
Breakfast meetings, Board dinners, presentation to ex-comp committee.
the most popular techniques for developing their
successors. These results are displayed in Figure 11
and some example responses are provided in
Table 7.
In summary, CHROs who are developing internal
successor candidates must find ways to develop
candidate skills while providing them visibility to
key constituencies. CHROs are using challenging/
rotational assignments to develop a broader skill
base and perspective. Some specific assignments
include executive compensation and HR operations.
In addition, CHROs are using special projects to give
them leadership experience while also providing
candidates’ visibility to the CEO, the ELT, and the
board. In a vast majority of cases, the CHROs
indicate that while they do not necessarily have
a ready-now candidate (25%), the CEO seems to
support the internal candidate being groomed
(87%).
14
TABLE 7. Ways of preparing the CHRO successor
45%
34% 31%
24%
20% 20% 18% 18% 17% 15%
11% 11% 7% 6%
4% 4% 2% 1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Challe
nging
Assign
ments/
not fa
miliar/r
otatio
nal
Expos
ure to
Sen
ior Te
am/E
LT/C
-suite
Expos
ure to
Boa
rd
Coach
ing
Lead
Visible
proje
cts/sp
ecial
proje
cts
Execu
tive C
ompe
nsati
on ex
perie
nce
Expos
e to e
xterna
l learn
ing/ex
terna
l train
ing
Give re
spon
sibilit
y for
HR opera
tions
Expos
ure to
CEO
Involv
e the
m in S
trateg
y
Formal
Develo
pmen
t plan
Expos
e to C
-suite
issu
es
Intern
ation
al Ass
ignmen
ts
Expos
ure to
cros
s-orga
nizati
on is
sues
Involv
e in O
rg. re
struc
ture
Involv
e in p
lannin
g for
board
activ
ities
Career
discu
ssion
s
M&A expe
rienc
e
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 11: What are the top 3 things you are doing to prepare your successor(s) for the CHRO role?
Involve them in developing strategy. Engage them in taking difficult matters to the ELT for decisions. Expose them to ELT and next layer leaders as much as possible to build relationships and allow them to influence leaders.
The individuals are provided exposure to the CEO and Senior Management team. In addition, they are provided opportunities to brief the executives, lead enterprise-wide initiatives and gain some exposure to staff work needed for the Board. These candidates have had job rotations and increased responsibilities.
Participation in our internal hi-potential leadership development program. External coach to work on improving her soft skills (more clearly demonstrating empathy, relationship building with peers). Planning for 2015 for her to be an observer at a Comp Committee meeting and spend time with VP Total Rewards to improve understanding of Exec Comp.
Special projects, exposure, personal coaching and expanding her role. She is also currently leading an extensive comp and benefit project with broad impacts and implications. She will have the opportunity to present findings and lead the implementation.
Given him expanded accountabilities, giving him exposure to the Board and the operating committee, helping him build an external network, and assigning him work to give him more exposure to technical work that he has not been exposed to.
Giving them large complicated roles. Spending a lot of personal time coaching them and telling them about what I do and why. Reviewing Board materials with them as necessary. Letting them lead key projects in the function.
15
HR@MOOREConclusion
This report presents the most comprehensive
examination of the CHRO succession process from
the CHRO’s perspective. CHROs described why
they believe they were appointed, especially if that
appointment came from outside, in which case it
was usually due to a lack of a ready successor. They
noted that upon entering their role they were least
prepared to deal with the board, particularly in the
area of executive compensation.
These CHROs have used this experience to develop
their internal successor candidates. They have
tried to use assignments, many of which they felt
Executive succession has garnered increasing attention from Boards of Directors, CEO’s, analysts and the media. Failures and miscues in making the wrong succession decisions have cost companies in expenses, missed growth opportunities and reputation. In spite of the fact that executive succession presents huge risks to corporations, little is known regarding the challenges, pitfalls and best practices. The sensitive nature of “behind the veil” processes has limited the ability to conduct detailed research into executive succession. Thus, the Darla Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina has created the Center for Executive Succession (CES) to leverage the world-class faculty research capability and a unique corporate/academic partnership to provide cutting edge knowledge in these areas.
The mission of CES is to be the objective source of knowledge about the issues, challenges and best practices regarding C-suite succession. We seek to appeal to board members, CEOs, CHROs and other C-suite members by providing state-of-the-art research and practice on executive succession.
The corporate/academic collaboration between CES and its partner companies will generate credible, unique and unbiased knowledge to further the effectiveness of executive succession practices in firms.
For more information on becoming a CES partner company, please contact [email protected].
best prepared them (business partner, executive
compensation, talent management), to broaden
the successor’s skills and experiences. In addition,
CHROs make efforts to use projects to give
successors exposure to those who may play a role
in the decision, but more importantly, those who
will have to work with the candidate, i.e., the CEO,
ELT, and the board. This report, through both the
quantitative results and examples, should provide
a strong knowledge base from which CHROs can
develop the next generation of CHRO talent.
Columbia, SC 29208803.777.3176
moore.sc.eduThe University of South Carolina does not discriminate in educational or employment opportunities or decisions for qualified persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetics, sexual orientation or veteran status.
The Darla Moore School of Business’ new building has generated significant buzz since it opened its doors in August, both for its striking appearance and for the ways it promises to transform business education. Drawing on extensive input from students, faculty, staff and the business community about how space can be configured to optimize business education, the $106.5-million building is the university’s most ambitious construction project to date.
With its many sustainable features, the building is targeting LEED Platinum certification, making it a model for sustainable architecture and sustainable business practices. Its open and flexible design facilitates enhanced interaction and collaboration among faculty and students and makes the building an inviting hub for community engagement. In these and other ways, the building is a physical embodiment of the Moore School’s commitment to forward-thinking leadership for the business community.
Patrick M. WrightThomas C. Vandiver Bicentennial Chair 1014 Greene StreetColumbia, SC 29208
803.777.5955803.777.6876 Fax [email protected]/CES
Center forExecutiveSuccession
